Granted, I've never seen a Fine Scale Miniatures or Sierra West Structure, but when I look at the ads in the mags for the likes of Bar Mills and Campbell's and others, I see highly stylized structures to the point of unbelievability. It seems every one is detailed to the point of looking like a hillbilly flea market.
Now I have both Muir Models and Campbell's and the difference between the two is that Muir Models uses a specific prototype (ala 1890 Sacramento Sand House or Melrose Station) and is pretty much no non-sense. Campbell's on the other hand tends toward the romantic, that saloon that you would have liked to have seen or the hooker hotel that you might have gone to if you weren't married or afraid of VD.
Of the two, Campbell's is the one still in beeswax.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
Simon Modelling CB&Q and Wabash See my slowly evolving layout on my picturetrail site http://www.picturetrail.com/simontrains and our videos at http://www.youtube.com/user/MrCrispybake?feature=mhum
I have a hard time lumping Campbell kits in the same lot as FSM or Bar Mills. The two latter mfgr's kits include a huge amount of detail items intended for scattering around the completed kit to create an over-the-top impression of dilapidation. Also, the architecture does seem somewhat whimsical to me. I guess they're supposed to look like something you would find up in the mountains of New England during the depression, 'cause they sure don't look like they belong anywhere else in the US.
As for Campbell, I know that they produced at least one series of kits based on prototypes found in Quincy, CA, and that their "Grandmas House" kit was patterend after a prototype in Coupeville, WA. I built one of their kits that was nearly a dead ringer for an actual lumber mill on the Washington coast. Also, Campbell doesn't include all the detail parts, so there is less of a tendency for the builder to create an unrealistically cluttered kit. I believe most Campbell's kits, if not exact copies of the real thing, have a fairly strong prototype influence.
Tom
Model railroads are, in some ways, caricatures in themselves: instead of a miles-long railroad, we have an impossibly short mainline with shrunken mountains. Instead of a whole town, we place a half-dozen buildings, typically also dramatically under-scale for their apparent purpose. In a moderately sized town that has been around long enough to have some history, there are hundreds of buildings, only a handful of which may stand out as particularly charming, stylized or dilapidated. Because we don't have the room to model hundreds of structures, we generally don't think to model the mundane ones with a single charming representative--although of course we could, but a visitor would probably go "Well, that town looks kind of boring and plain, except for that one building with the peeled paint and a half-dozen cats congregated on the back porch near the trash pile and the washerwoman hanging her laundry!"
A modern-era model railroader could model a 21st century suburban tract with a row of identical pseudo stucco homes in two alternating shades of taupe (with a pair of HO scale SUVs parked in front,) and put far-away signs on the backdrop for Target, Wal-Mart, In 'N Out Burger, Blockbuster Video and Applebee's to represent the business district just out of view, although that in itself would be a caricature of the real thing, with hundreds of homes, and typically in most of such a development the retail segment is nowhere in sight.
I believe some Campbell kits are based on prototype structures from out west. Some Branchline's follow prototypes from the northeast and American Model builders kits seem to be basic structures. FSM, Fos Scale, Bars Mills and others seem to follow the Sellios idea of extra additions and pipes and stacks etc, but as the model builder, you can decide how much "character" each building recieves.Mike
potlatcher wrote: I have a hard time lumping Campbell kits in the same lot as FSM or Bar Mills. The two latter mfgr's kits include a huge amount of detail items intended for scattering around the completed kit to create an over-the-top impression of dilapidation. Also, the architecture does seem somewhat whimsical to me. I guess they're supposed to look like something you would find up in the mountains of New England during the depression, 'cause they sure don't look like they belong anywhere else in the US.As for Campbell, I know that they produced at least one series of kits based on prototypes found in Quincy, CA, and that their "Grandmas House" kit was patterend after a prototype in Coupeville, WA. I built one of their kits that was nearly a dead ringer for an actual lumber mill on the Washington coast. Also, Campbell doesn't include all the detail parts, so there is less of a tendency for the builder to create an unrealistically cluttered kit. I believe most Campbell's kits, if not exact copies of the real thing, have a fairly strong prototype influence.Tom
I concur with Tom. As I understand the history, many of the Campbell kits came from various structure articles in Model Railroader. Others came from real prototypes. True, some of the Campbell kits have whimisical and cute names, and the "how it looks built" pictures may suggest a caricature. But the Campbell kits I have built had no suggestions in the instructions or materials in the kits for building other than the straight forward structure in normal to good condition.
I had planned to use the open air fruit packing shed and platform in the picture as the basis for my narrow gauge to standard gauge transfer facility. That's one of the positive aspects of Campbell kits to me - the complete templates and instructions and wood construction make for easy modifications into something that fits my specific situation.
just my thoughts
Fred W
Bar Mills is deliberately trying for that New England look. I agree that they tend to overdo the deep Depression Era look for some of their displays and ads, but of course you don't have to finish them as near derelicts with trash, old parts, etc. strewn about. Most of them seem to be pretty New England to me. Wicked Wanda's may be a little fanciful, but then I've seen some pretty strange buildings as a result of additions.
As someone (I forget who) once pointed out, if you want realism then most of your layout should be ordinary and mundane.
Enjoy
Paul
Yup, like flies to you-know-what. I'm here, aint I?
Whimsy, nostalgia, quaintness, powerful imagery, a feast for the eyes before the imagination, and careful scaling. They have it all. They have immense appeal because of their visual nature....but not alone. I think they don't look so hot when by themselves. Or, they look odd. It is when they are placed in a context, a carefully crafted setting that has its own realism in scale, that these models come into their own.
I've built quite a few FSM, Bar Mills, Cambell & others over the years. The great thing about craftsmen kits, is that you can build and detail them any way you want. The ads just show one of the possibillities. I usually build them to look like they're 10 to 30 years years old. Most have that painted in the last 5 to 10 years "look". I love the multitude of detail castings that come with the kits; they get spread all over the layout not just one structure.
BTW here in the northeast, you can find a lot of buildings like the FSM stuff if you know where to look. They may look over the top on a layout, but in reality they're sprinkled amoungst hundreds of other buildings and don't really stand out.
Jay
C-415 Build: https://imageshack.com/a/tShC/1
Other builds: https://imageshack.com/my/albums
The fact of the matter is that a considerable segment of hobbyists today seems rather hard pressed to recognize the difference between realistic structure modeling and caricature. So, it is of little wonder that many are willing to spend big bucks on kits that do not resemble anything you are likely to encounter in the real world.
One would have to say that the current situation arose with John Allen's often tongue-in-cheek modeling from the pages of MR and RMC in the 1950's. John unintentionly created a trend or style that was bolstered by the later efforts of certain other, also high profile, hobbyists and arguably peaked with the downright Disney-esque, over the top, modeling of Malcom Furlow.
As a truly outstanding realistic modeler when he wanted to be, J.A. was quite obviously poking fun with many of his scenic vignettes, never considering them examples of serious modeling he was certainly very capable of. Those that followed in this style early on, however, likely did so more to gain attention than out of any belief that it was good modeling. Unfortunately, with time, many hobbyists came to accept the outlandish and improbable as part of the norm, representing some sort of solid reality, especially in cases of depicting the Depression Era or of backwoods railroading.
For my part, I'd rather have an air of reality about my layout than for it to look like scenes from the comicbook-based movie "Popeye." Keep those realistic kits comin' Laser-Art and J-L!
CNJ831
"Realistic structure modeling" is not a function of the kit , but rather the modeler. An FSM (or similar) model built "straight" is every bit as realistic as the LaserArt and JL stuff, if not more so, as they are mostly "stick" built structures. It's up to the modeler to finish it the way he or she wants.
I've spoken with George Selios and he told me that most of he structures are taken either from old photos or rreal structures that are/were still standing. Many of the larger kits were selectively compressed to "fit" in our HO worlds.
I may get flamed for saying this, but for most applications, scenery and structures should (IMHO) take a supporting role to our trains. Railroad-related structures would be an exception, those being either company buildings or rail-served industries. Houses, towns, etc., should (again, IMHO) be detailed enough to suggest life and realism yet not take center stage.
I tend to use mundane-looking structures. I paint them so they don't look identical to everyone else's, but generally I don't go for the Sanford & Sons junkyard or haunted-house look. After all, most towns in Central PA in the 1950s (my locale and era) were a bit dirty from coal smoke and may have seen better days, but their residents had pride and kept them generally in good repair.
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
I admit that I am guilty of structure caricature to a great degree, partially due to my own sense of humor and architectural presence. In addition to my other reasons for modeling Sacramento in the 1950s, it was also an era when the central city was in a state of decay, before redevelopment and slum clearance took its toll. This means that modeling where I model requires a backdrop of aging and semi-abandoned Victorian and Craftsman homes, multi-story tenements, and various industrial buildings, mostly beat to heck and the worse for wear. The railroad is serviced by a gaggle of comically small 44-tonners, aging steeplecab locomotives, and whatever small diesel power Western Pacific doesn't need at the moment.
Of course, there are monstrous black SP locomotives and Black Widow painted SP diesels in the neighborhood, and the sleek and shiny WP California Zephyr passes through town, but I'm not modeling those parts of town. Of course, there are shiny new suburban developments and brand-new shopping centers to the east of the central city, but I'm not modeling them either. We as model railroaders are artists, and like any artist when we create art we make a conscious choice what sort of view of the world we wish to represent.
This view can be pragmatic or fanciful, bold or subdued, based on what we think of as beautiful and correct (or ugly and incorrect.) For a variety of reasons, centering perhaps because we are still a hobby perceived as grown men playing with small toys, a certain attitude prevails amongst many model railroaders to not take things too seriously. I agree with this point of view because it pretty much matches my idea of life in general.
simon1966 wrote:This is of course a Spacemouse thread designed to stimulate heated debate while he sits back and enjoys everyone ranting away.
Whaaaaaat???????
Actually I was looking at my RMC last night and the question dawned on me. It occurred to me that our hobby is to a popular extent geared to the surreal, that somehow craftsmanship is equated to Selioesque Furlowism rather brass tacks realism--at least to the extent it is marketed.
modelmaker51 wrote: "Realistic structure modeling" is not a function of the kit , but rather the modeler. An FSM (or similar) model built "straight" is every bit as realistic as the LaserArt and JL stuff, if not more so, as they are mostly "stick" built structures. It's up to the modeler to finish it the way he or she wants.
Yes and no. The manufacturer's original concept and intent in the case of such kits is for the modeler to built them into run-down, dilapidated, sometimes semi-fantasy structures, based on how the enclosed instructions read, the included details and all the technical advice on painting, weathering and finishing the model. No alternative info is offered for building them in any more pristine or realistic manner. These kits have been designed with the idea of being caricaturish. That's the difference.
CNJ831 wrote: modelmaker51 wrote: "Realistic structure modeling" is not a function of the kit , but rather the modeler. An FSM (or similar) model built "straight" is every bit as realistic as the LaserArt and JL stuff, if not more so, as they are mostly "stick" built structures. It's up to the modeler to finish it the way he or she wants.Yes and no. The manufacturer's original concept and intent in the case of such kits is for the modeler to built them into run-down, dilapidated, sometimes semi-fantasy structures, based on how the enclosed instructions read, the included details and all the technical advice on painting, weathering and finishing the model. No alternative info is offered for building them in any more pristine or realistic manner. These kits have been designed with the idea of being caricaturish. That's the difference.CNJ831
I gotta agree with CNJ. It's not just the buildings, either. It's the way they're crammed together in scenes in displays that also adds to the caricature. Take a look at some of the scenes on the layout run by the owner of Bar Mills:
http://barmillsmodels.com/npc_amherst2lg.jpg
http://barmillsmodels.com/npc_amherst3.jpg
http://barmillsmodels.com/npc_amherst4.jpg
Compare that to some of the scenes on Bill Schneider's version of the New York, Ontario & Western (http://oandw.home.comcast.net/ ), a railroad that was on its last legs in the 1953 period Bill is modeling. Just cruise Bill's website. Bill Schneider works for Branchline Trains and is responsible for some of the items Branchline produces.
Andre
modelmaker51 wrote: I've built quite a few FSM, Bar Mills, Cambell & others over the years. The great thing about craftsmen kits, is that you can build and detail them any way you want. The ads just show one of the possibillities. I usually build them to look like they're 10 to 30 years years old. Most have that painted in the last 5 to 10 years "look". I love the multitude of detail castings that come with the kits; they get spread all over the layout not just one structure. BTW here in the northeast, you can find a lot of buildings like the FSM stuff if you know where to look. They may look over the top on a layout, but in reality they're sprinkled amoungst hundreds of other buildings and don't really stand out.
I agree. Here in upstate NY one can find strange structures with exagerations. Particully Victorian era structures. Here is a link(I hope) to a coal dealers office from early last century. It's current claim to fame was being moved. If you go to photo gallery and pop up some pictures, it seems a little exagerated on the barn or Gambrell style it is. If you hunt further you will see pics of trains in/around that time!(including a wreck, I think)Try this link:
Rounds Coal House - Home
-G
Modeling the RAILS system...
the Rural Allied Industrial System, where any and all may join the collective, share and lease equipment and ROW use for the betterment of mankind and profitability of all.
While I have papers to prove I'm not "all right in the head", the RAILS SYSTEM is a world from inside my head, but its ok, they like me there.(I think)
-G .
Just my thoughts, ideas, opinions and experiences. Others may vary.
HO and N Scale.
After long and careful thought, they have convinced me. I have come to the conclusion that they are right. The aliens did it.
That's the key. Only OCCASIONALLY do you see one of these buildings. The rest are unremarkable. When you create a scene out of nothing but over-the-top buildings what you get is a caricature. Ferinstance, my wife and I drove up to the town of Jackson in the California Mother Lode. We saw a house that could have been a prototype for a Bar Mills or FSM structure. The house was all cutesy and gingerbready. In addition to the gingerbread, it was painted pink with white trim. However, it was set in a neighborhood where the rest of the houses, while attractive, weren't real eyecatchers. A model of the neighborhood with that one house in it would be OK. A model of a neighborhood full of "gingerbread" houses would be a caricature.
andrechapelon wrote: BTW here in the northeast, you can find a lot of buildings like the FSM stuff if you know where to look. They may look over the top on a layout, but in reality they're sprinkled amoungst hundreds of other buildings and don't really stand out.That's the key. Only OCCASIONALLY do you see one of these buildings. The rest are unremarkable. When you create a scene out of nothing but over-the-top buildings what you get is a caricature. Ferinstance, my wife and I drove up to the town of Jackson in the California Mother Lode. We saw a house that could have been a prototype for a Bar Mills or FSM structure. The house was all cutesy and gingerbready. In addition to the gingerbread, it was painted pink with white trim. However, it was set in a neighborhood where the rest of the houses, while attractive, weren't real eyecatchers. A model of the neighborhood with that one house in it would be OK. A model of a neighborhood full of "gingerbread" houses would be a caricature.Andre
Besides the funky architecture and the cutsey styles, one other thing I think detracts from realism is the over-the-top clutter of signs - I understand many buildings had signs over them, but the craftsman kits go way overboard, recreating 1950s Times Square in a rural waystop.Actually it may not be the billboards so much as the smaller posters/paper signs pasted all-over the sides of buildings in a seemingly random fashion (now, in contemporary Manhattan there are indeed such displays, but only on abandoned buildings or construction hoardings).
Perhaps the photos I've seen of earlier eras are atypical, but I don't see mishmashes of posters and small signs on the average business buildings from the 1920s onward - I do see lines of posters in places like Baseball stadium and sometimes wood fencing, but that's about it (now, the occassional sign or two, especially ones associated with the type of business in the building they are posted on - that I see a lot of in images.
Has anyone build a caricature-ized craftsman kit as a tributre to the memory of John Allen?
hardcoalcase wrote: Has anyone build a caricature-ized craftsman kit as a tributre to the memory of John Allen?
Well...Fine Scale Miniatures did issue a "John Allen Special - A Tribute to John Allen and the G&D" kit some years ago, which built several structures representative of those on John's layout (the engine house, water tank, ash pit, blacksmith's shop and station). However, none of these structures were outstandingly caricaturish in appearance. In fact, I might consider them downright reasonably prototypical...like most of John's more serious models were.
This scratch-built Engine House was inspired by John Allen.
http://www.gdlines.com/GD_Galleries/Structures/index.html
Have Fun.... Bob.
andrechapelon wrote:It's not just the buildings, either. It's the way they're crammed together in scenes in displays that also adds to the caricature. Take a look at some of the scenes on the layout run by the owner of Bar Mills [...] Compare that to some of the scenes on Bill Schneider's version of the New York, Ontario & Western.
Shilshole wrote: andrechapelon wrote:It's not just the buildings, either. It's the way they're crammed together in scenes in displays that also adds to the caricature. Take a look at some of the scenes on the layout run by the owner of Bar Mills [...] Compare that to some of the scenes on Bill Schneider's version of the New York, Ontario & Western.Compare for what purpose? The Bar Mills scenes show an established and declining urban/industrial area with the requisite zero-lot-line development and high rises; the O&W scenes are small town/rural. The Bar Mills scenes succeed precisely because structures in them are crammed together.I think Jay nailed it: 'It's up to the modeler to finish it [a FSM-class kit] the way he or she wants.' Shingles and siding don't have to be pried up, shutters don't have to be dangling, and the paint can be fresh.
Thanks, you took the words right out of my hand, andrechapelon's comparison is like comparing apples and oranges; an urban scene versus a rural scene.
The kits just give you the raw materials, it's up to the modeler to build what they want or need. The ads are usually over the top - they're supposed to stand out, attract attention and get the purchaser's imagination going.
We're all building charicatures to one extent or another. If you're using any selctive compression, ie: distance between towns, making a building fit your space,etc, then it's a charicature, not "scale".
I think it's time to lighten upand loosen up, otherwise some of the folks here are going to start resembling those rivet counters and nit-pickers that have too narrow a view of the world..
modelmaker51 wrote:Realistic structure modeling" is not a function of the kit , but rather the modeler
Realistic structure modeling" is not a function of the kit , but rather the modeler
Many of the larger kits were selectively compressed to "fit" in our HO worlds.